RENO, Nev. (AP) - The projects before the Nevada Wildlife Commission seemed simple enough: spending about $160,000 to kill ravens and coyotes to protect sage grouse and mule deer from the predators.

But the situation has since turned into an ugly soap opera, with ethics questions raised over ties between one commissioner's mother and backers of the predator projects.

Commissioner Scott Raine of Eureka said the relationship involving his mother is a private matter, but the state attorney general's office said it could pose a conflict of interest.

"I guess I've come a long way in life because the last time somebody asked me a question like that they lost teeth," an indignant Raine said during a public comment period at the June 26 meeting in Lovelock.

"It's absolutely none of your business so just don't ask," he said.

Theatrics aside, the spat raises legitimate legal issues, according to Bryan Stockton, deputy attorney general for the commission that sets policy for the Nevada Department of Wildlife.

"It looks like there's a potential conflict, yes," Stockton told The Associated Press. "We're trying to clear it up so it never happens again."

The brouhaha concerns the two projects proposed by Nevada Alliance 4 Wildlife, a group headed by Patrick Laughlin of Elko, that seeks $163,200 this fiscal year for predator control programs, documents show. His father is Mike Laughlin, who serves on the commission's Wildlife Damage Management Committee reviewing the projects. Mike Laughlin is in a relationship with Raine's mother, Lee Raine.

During a meeting last week of the committee, Commissioner David McNinch of Reno, speaking as a concerned citizen, encouraged members to disclose "family relations or quasi-family relations"
involving any matters on their agenda.

The ethics concerns raise questions about whether the tie requires disclosure from Scott Raine or prevents him from participating in discussions or voting on Patrick Laughlin's projects. Responding to McNinch's disclosure query, Scott Raine said Mike Laughlin would not vote on his son's proposals if they came up for a vote.

The exact circumstances of the Raine and Laughlin relationship are unclear, and neither would discuss it at the meeting.

In 2007, Lee Raine and Mike Laughlin were honored as Nevada's outstanding conservationists by the federal Natural Resource Conservation Service for efforts to improve their 40-acres of native meadow pasture in Lamoille. Elko County assessor records list Lee Raine as the owner of the property.

Scott Raine said there were no other marital or familial disclosures to be made. "Nobody's married to anybody, nobody's blood relation to anybody," he said.

But that prompted a second inquiry from another commissioner.

"Maybe it's better to not worry about the legalities so much; maybe it would be better to disclose ... what information there is just so the public knows it, 'cause it's going to come out," commissioner Michael McBeath of Las Vegas prodded.

Pressed by Raine to explain, McBeath said, "What I'm referring to is, is there a relationship between your mother and Mr. Laughlin?"

Laughlin likened the questioning to an "inquisition."

"You want to know my life history, is this what you're talking about?" he said.

Raine said there was nothing to disclose.

"From a legal standpoint, which is all that matters in this world, there is no relationship between anybody," he said.

Under state ethics laws, a public officer or employee is required to disclose and abstain from acting on matters "which would reasonably be affected by his commitment in a private capacity to the interests of others."

"Others," under the law, include household members; relations through blood, marriage or adoption; employers; business associates; or any relationship "substantially similar" to those specified.

"That sounds like one of those words that keep lawyers in their jobs," Raine said when contacted by phone Thursday and told of the deputy attorney general's comments over a possible conflict.

The wildlife department's Heritage Trust account is funded through fees paid by hunters and big game tags allocated to sportsmen groups that are then auctioned, fetching tens of thousands of dollars annually for the agency.

Groups then apply for grants for specific projects they intend to carry out benefiting wildlife and habitat.

The predator projects were approved by the commission in May despite recommendations from staff that they be denied for lack of
detail and duplicity of ongoing agency efforts, records show.

One seeks $50,000 a year over a five year period to be used to pay the federal government's Wildlife Services agency to poison ravens in sage grouse nesting areas in northeast Nevada.

The other asks for $113,200 a year, also for five years, for coyote and raven control in the same region to enhance mule deer fawn survival.

"From a biological perspective, the control efforts in the proposal are duplicative and vague and in light of this, the proposal's scientific justification to perform such work appears insufficient," one staff report said.

Those two projects and one other, however, were approved and sent to the damage management, or predator control committee, with no clear direction of who - the wildlife agency or grant applicant - is in charge of implementing them.

Raine agreed the commission's handling of the projects may be unusual, but said they are worthy causes.